. NMT04-T0113
Volume IV · Page 113
| Aside from these arguments, which in
themselves already show that the mentioned documents are absolutely without
value as proof of the act incriminating Naumann, I would like to mention in
addition that Naumann was active in Smolensk only during part of the period
into which, according to the reports, the death of the bodies found would fall.
Besides, any connection between the crimes mentioned in the reports and
Naumann's activity is missing. None of the persons mentioned in the reports
with the exception of Naumann was a member of the Einsatzgruppe. What Naumann
is supposed to have done is also not mentioned in the reports. The contents of the reports contain nothing but what was shown by the film offered by the prosecution as evidence. That is why I objected at the time against the acceptance of the film¹ as evidence and the Tribunal sustained this objection, too. Documents U.S.S.R., 48 and 56, and Prosecution Exhibits 234 and 235, have therefore no value at all as evidence in the proceedings against Naumann and are thus eliminated as evidence. Only Prosecution Exhibit 76 remains as evidence, but due to the reasons already mentioned by me, it has only insignificant value as evidence. |
| EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY
OF DEFENDANT NOSSKE² |
| DIRECT EXAMINATION |
| * * * * * * * * * * |
| [Tr. pp. 3493-6] DR. HOFFMANN (counsel for defendant Nosske) : I now return to your activity. You were then in charge of a department in this office, and what was the size of this department? DEFENDANT NOSSKE: The department consisted of four people besides myself, one co-worker, one registrar, and two stenographers. Q. And what was your task in detail? A. My task was to deal with reports which had been sent us |
¹ The prosecution offered a film into evidence as Document No. U.S.S.R.-81, Prosecution Exhibit 173. Counsel for the defendants Naumann and Seibert objected to the showing of the film, and pointed out that it was without probative value. After seeing the film, the Tribunal sustained defense counsel's objection. (Tr. p. 257.)
² Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 4, 8, 9 December 47, pp. 3424-3687.
